I'll probably get downvotes for telling the truth, but whatever, it deserves to be said even if folks only see it for a few hours.
Our industry is still full of sexism and racism. Yes, things have gotten better. But most women in our industry can still tell you disturbing stories. We still have a long way to go.
HN is a generally going to reflect our industry. Some days are better than others here and it really depends on the topic. But it's pretty disappointing when you do come across some blatant sexism or racism and folks agree with it. PG himself is occasionally an angry privileged man moaning about the woke mob so it's no surprise not much has changed here over the decades. The owners like it this way. PG and Dang also get a lot right about how to run a site like this. Both can be true.
> Our industry is still full of sexism and racism.
Im curious what people like you want. If you look at the rest of the world, the west seems like it is decades ahead with this sort of stuff than anyone else in the world. And social change on national scales don't happen overnight. Yes improvements can be made, but HN is a site focussed on technology and that is what is mostly discussed. If some sexism or racism or whatever slips through, thats just the world we live in today. If you look at the youth today, they are already much more accommodating towards diverse views. Just give the world time and you'll see on average things will get better. But forcing your views onto people who grew up differently than you is just annoying.
[edit] when saying "people like you" I am refering to the highly vocal inflexible people on the interwebs.
> the west seems like it is decades ahead with this sort of stuff
"The west"?
Ok, so when is the US going to become part of the west?
The previous elected president of the United States believes that because he's privileged - by virtue of being a nepobaby - he can "grab women by the pussy", with no consequences.
So you tell me, what do "people like [us] want"? Do you really have no idea?
> Ok, so when is the US going to become part of the west?
I'm from Africa. Here "the west" is an expression refering to europe and the US and/or advanced democratic countries. I thought it was a common expression, I apologize if I was unclear.
> The previous elected president of the United States believes that because he's privileged - by virtue of being a nepobaby...
Trump doesn't act the way he does "because he is priveledged by virtue of being a nepobaby". He acts that way, because he is old and grew up in times where acting that way was socially accepted. In modern times it is not accepted and people are growing up knowing it is wrong.
The point of my post was basically that preaching to a tech focussed website full of mostly middle aged men is the wrong strategy. If you want to make a difference, go to the youth and don't expect change to happen overnight.
In the corpus of global communities this tends to be an extremely accepting and courteous one, from what I can tell over the last 13 years being on here.
Don't be insane. You know what we want, and that's an end to sexism and racism. I don't care how we compare to other countries, I care how we rank on the "are we sexist or racist at all" metric.
Honestly, your question is one of the worst I have ever read, because it insinuates that you think it's ok to still be racist and sexist as long as we're less racist and sexist than others. We're not less racist or sexist than anyone else in the world, for one thing, so the premise for your complaint is baseless, and the amount of racism and sexism that is acceptable is zero, no matter where you are in the world.
A website to discuss interesting things in thoughtful way that is largely free from sexism, ageism, and racism.
> the west seems like it is decades ahead with this sort of stuff
Some countries treated slaves better than other countries. Hopefully you can agree there was still a big problem to fix.
> social change on national scales don't happen overnight
Sure. And I'll be impatient and insistent until I live in the kind of world I want, which is one that is free as practically as possible from sexism, ageism, racism and other bias that keeps us from achieving what we are truly capable of as a species.
> If you look at the youth today, they are already much more accommodating towards diverse views
Which is why many of them avoid this site and call it "The Orange Site".
> Just give the world time and you'll see on average things will get better
I already said things are getting better. I also don't have time. I'm old. And the oppressed themselves have no patience. Nor should they.
> forcing your views onto people who grew up differently than you is just annoying
Who here is forcing their views on people who grew up differently?
If the price to pay for a better world is that I have to annoy some people who want to maintain the status quo, I am more than willing to pay that price. I wish it were actually that easy.
A lot of users don't seem to recognize racism or sexism when it is not directed at them. This leads them to think it is not a problem.
If you point out something specific, some users will double down on their view that nothing is wrong. They start arguing as if they know nothing, and demand that every detail must be elaborated to them on a silver platter.
Oh, and the demands for stats.
Nevermind that the social sciences are in their infancy, and largely incapable of measuring the effects of things such as racism and sexism.
Science itself is the equivalent of a toddler - it is systematic (step by step), not systemic (whole picture). Reality is made of interconnected systems, and both perspectives are required to understand reality.
yea see I run my own business and I don't consider the gender or race of people applying (aka not racist/sexist)
> It's hard to even find women to interview, let alone hire.
from my perspective this is a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part, frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision
if there is a movement to get men into nursing, it's not nearly as vocal (and why would there be?)
Ok, you still have zero experience in our industry, per your own words. And it shows.
> I don't consider the gender or race of people applying (aka not racist/sexist)
So you're ok with reinforcing any existing sexism and racism in the pipeline.
I'll give you a concrete example. We have to choose a speaker for our tech conference. All else being equal the tie-breaker will be to choose the person with the most speaking experience. Can you see how you've possibly and probably just reinforced existing sexism? I would guess you cannot see it.
> a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part
Nah. I usually don't have a say about who gets into the hiring pipeline. And when I have had a say I've always talked to recruiters about qualifications not gender or race. So you got that wrong.
> frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision
You should speak to some actual women so you can correct your bad guesses.
A bunch of old guys? What makes you think they are guys or old?
Keen to get someone under their supervision? You sound creepy.
Please keep fighting the good fight. There are a lot of people here who appreciate it.
I've noticed an increased level of bigoted comments, and downvotes on progressive comments, since the middle of this year. I don't know if it's linked to reddit's stupidity, but the trolls/assholes have been more active lately.
Perpetuating flamewars like this is not ok on HN, regardless of how bad someone else's comments are or you feel they are. If you'd please make your substantive points thoughtfully instead, we'd appreciate it.
You've repeatedly broken the site guidelines in this thread, including crossing into personal attack. That's not cool, regardless of how bad someone else's comments are or you feel they are. If you'd please make your substantive points thoughtfully instead, we'd appreciate it.
Why? It's like advocating for a society wide genocide with nice fluffy words. Isil propaganda starts like this too:"let's just go back to nature, let's just go back to the golden years, the good old days". This stuff has killed and kills every time it becomes policy. As we speak Sri Lanka starves,the ashes of the starved, they are on grand parents hands.
You're claiming that gossip and hero worship and celebrity didn't exist before the 20th century which is a wild claim that you'd need to back up with evidence. Humans haven't changed that much over the centuries.
The same arguments were made to dismiss rock music when compared to classical music. And a world without the Velvet Underground would be more soulless to me.
I've heard soulless music performed by highly trained musicians playing on great instruments. And soulful music played on crappy instruments by untrained musicians. On average, the great music comes from the more trained musicians on the better tools.
AI is just another tool. The vast majority of music is terrible. It will continue to be terrible. And a few geniuses will use AI the way Hendrix used the electric guitar. I'm excited to hear what that will sound like.
> The same arguments were made to dismiss rock music when compared to classical music
Just because people were wrong in the past doesn’t mean they are wrong now.
> AI is just another tool
Not all tools are the same. A tool that changes how sound is amplified (like an electric guitar) is vastly different than a tool that can theoretically replace the human in the loop entirely.
Someone playing a piano and someone playing an electric piano are much, much closer to each other than someone pressing the start button on a player piano is to either of them.
That same argument has been wrong over and over again. So there's no reason to believe it's now suddenly a good argument unless given solid evidence.
Distortion was just another tool, and first rejected as highly undesirable. It's literally "just" putting an electric guitar through a tube amp and turning up the knob. And it revolutionized music. It sounds amazing in the right hands.
The more important point that I already made is the not all musicians are the same. Give a piano or a player piano to the vast majority of musicians and the output will be common and familiar. Give either to a musical genius like Hendrix and they'll manage to get something beautiful and new out of it. I'm looking forward to what the handful of geniuses out there will get out of AI. It's going to be fun.
Can you give an example of a unique insight or emotion? A lot of the classic books I read, the greatest films of all time, and the most celebrated visual artists are unique mostly in style or execution, but all express the same basic universal human truths.
Now you need to define what a unique, profound emotion is.
And you need to define great execution.
And you need to explain why intentionally having poor execution couldn't express a unique, profound emotion. On Radiohead's biggest hit Creep "That's the sound of Jonny trying to fuck the song up. He really didn't like it the first time we played it, so he tried spoiling it. And it made the song."
At the end of the day it's always going to seem all subjective and a matter of opinion. Because it's too hard to pinpoint the objective part of what we are doing when we decide what's great and what's garbage. If there even is an objective part.
I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer.
I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI.
Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric guitar is lifeless when compared to the non-machine acoustic version. When what really matters is who is operating the machine. AI is just another tool. It will be used in insensitive mechanical ways and in ways that deeply enrich our lives.
I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate chess players (like evaluating position as a draw while one side has to do a series of very precise moves to achieve equality, which is a clearly lost position for a non-grandmaster player).
Some of what you are claiming is false. Most chess AIs for example can identify almost every opening move in existence. Something no human can do. That's a type of position evaluation, and a good starting point for further research. No free coach is going to sit for 4 hours straight, 5 days a week, playing thousands of games exploring variations of a particular opening. That kind of self-study will definitely help you become a better player. Humans just aren't willing to be that opponent, especially to a beginner and not for free.
Also I'm not claiming you can learn quicker by exclusively using AI. I'm claiming you can learn quicker by adding it to your set of tools. Human coaches and books are other tools you can or should use.
Even the some of the best chess players in the world are now using AI opponents to explore new ideas.
Chess engines are very important for grandmasters, for sure. But for beginners they are mostly useless. That’s what I was arguing about.
Regarding openings - the best place to learn are books/studies/even Wikipedia articles that explain the ideas behind the major moves and variations, which chess engines don’t do. Also, a human can explain which opening are good to play at your skill level and which are not.
Regarding free coaches, playing with a friend/relative over the board and discussing the game afterwards has a similar effect.
Chess engines aren't useless for beginners. That's an empty claim and is as easily dismissed as it was made.
I gave a list of reasons why a chess engine is good for learning. Refute those as a start.
Here's another reason: an AI engine will point out illegal moves, and patiently over hundreds of games in your home. A free coach isn't going to come to your house and do that.
Neither will most friends or relatives. People get bored and move on.
> I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI.
I’d be more inclined to agree if everyone learned the same way, but we don’t. What works for you may not work as well for others.
For me and music, for example, I learn best by hearing and playing by ear. If I want to learn a song, it’s usually a good bit of time with me playing and rewinding, pausing, playing, pausing, rewinding, etc. I can read sheet music, but the process is woefully slow and not fun for my brain. I could watch someone teach me each part, but that also sounds boring, and I feel I learn better through my own method of trial and error because my brain has to work out the nuances - “was that a hammer-on? Was there a slide transition there? That sounds like a permutation of an earlier chord instead of a direct reuse of it! Etc”
Being able to play against AI may be just as valuable for person A to learn as playing against a human would be for person B. To suggest one is strictly superior to the other, in all cases, is very black and white thinking that doesn’t fit how people work.
Will those players analyze and rate your moves like a chess engine will? Will they name common opening strategies for you so you can research them in books? Will they let you take back several moves to explore different lines?
Our industry is still full of sexism and racism. Yes, things have gotten better. But most women in our industry can still tell you disturbing stories. We still have a long way to go.
HN is a generally going to reflect our industry. Some days are better than others here and it really depends on the topic. But it's pretty disappointing when you do come across some blatant sexism or racism and folks agree with it. PG himself is occasionally an angry privileged man moaning about the woke mob so it's no surprise not much has changed here over the decades. The owners like it this way. PG and Dang also get a lot right about how to run a site like this. Both can be true.